Study 1
Duwe and McNeeley (2021) conducted a retrospective quasi-experimental design to assess the impact of video visitation on recidivism, using a sample of individuals released from Minnesota prisons from 2016 to 2018. Those in the treatment group (n = 885) received at least one video visit. Propensity score matching was used to individually match those who received video visits with individuals from the larger comparison group pool (approximately 19,983 individuals in prison). Those in the matched comparison group (n = 885) did not receive any video visits.
Individuals in the treatment group were on average 34 years old, and about half (48 percent) were white. Most participants in the treatment group were male (91 percent), unmarried (86 percent), and received in-person visits (79 percent). Similarly, individuals in the matched comparison group were on average 34 years old, and about half (49 percent) were white. Most participants were male (91 percent), unmarried (86 percent), and received in-person visits (80 percent). After matching, the two groups were also equal on several covariates such as criminal history and prison-based measures. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups after matching.
The independent variable was receipt of video visits. Data on video visits were obtained from JPay, the vendor that provided video visits to those incarcerated in Minnesota prisons. The main outcome of interest was recidivism. Recidivism was defined as any of the following: 1) a reconviction for any offense, 2) a reconviction for a felony offense, 3) a reconviction for a violent offense, and 4) a revocation for a technical violation. The follow-up time for recidivism ranged from 2 to 5 years, with an average of 3.5 years. Recidivism data on convictions were obtained from the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, and revocations data were obtained from the Correctional Operations Management System database maintained by the Minnesota Department of Corrections. Cox regression models were used to estimate the effects of video visits on recidivism, accounting for propensity score and in-person visitation. The study did not conduct subgroup analyses.